Simpleχity;1064044466 said:Unless new material/forensic evidence is revealed, I would say no.
I'm very cognoscente of what the duty of a grand jury is, and have posted such information in more than one Ferguson thread here.Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty.
Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty. From Justice Scalia:
"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
He provided the grand jury with far more information than is usually provided to a grand jury. This is referred to as a "data dump", or dumping so much data on a grand jury that it's difficult for them to sort through it all.Just curious what the consensus is.
He provided the grand jury with far more information than is usually provided to a grand jury. This is referred to as a "data dump", or dumping so much data on a grand jury that it's difficult for them to sort through it all.
He conducted the presentation of evidence to the grand jury like it was trial, without the benefit of cross examination.
He conducted the press conference like he was a defense attorney for Wilson even though he's supposed to work on behalf of the state and the victim, Brown.
He has not indicted a police officer in a shooting in the entire 23 years he's been the prosecutor.
His police officer father was killed by a black man in the line of duty.
His brother, nephew and cousin are all police officers in St. Louis.
His mother was a clerk for the St. Louis PD for 20 years.
Yeah, he threw it. If someone hasn't indicted a police officer for 23 years, why would he start now? There was no chance and I hope he's investigated by the federal government.
Which is exactly what happened.Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty.
Yeah I saw some idiot trying to pass this off as if meant something.From Justice Scalia:
"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
There you go still trying to suggest such an absurdity.it is interesting however that there is still to this day-- months later--- a seeming controversy over the distance that Brown fled/died from the vehicle.
Bs. Data was not just summarily dumped on them, nor was anything made too difficult for them.He provided the grand jury with far more information than is usually provided to a grand jury. This is referred to as a "data dump", or dumping so much data on a grand jury that it's difficult for them to sort through it all.
An irrelevant assertion.He conducted the presentation of evidence to the grand jury like it was trial, without the benefit of cross examination.
You are wrong.He conducted the press conference like he was a defense attorney for Wilson even though he's supposed to work on behalf of the state and the victim, Brown.
:dohHe has not indicted a police officer in a shooting in the entire 23 years he's been the prosecutor.
His police officer father was killed by a black man in the line of duty.
His brother, nephew and cousin are all police officers in St. Louis.
His mother was a clerk for the St. Louis PD for 20 years.
:dohYeah, he threw it. If someone hasn't indicted a police officer for 23 years, why would he start now? There was no chance and I hope he's investigated by the federal government.
Just curious what the consensus is.
So how many police officers were involved in shootings and not charged?
Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty. From Justice Scalia:
"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
At least 12 shootings total and 4 shootings in which a grand jury was used. One of those shootings involved a case where the prosecutor in question made untrue statements about witness testimony and a federal investigation later revealed that the officers in the case had lied when they said that the Black men they killed were driving towards them (the reason they gave for shooting them 21 times).
Ferguson tragedy becoming a farce - The Washington Post
20,000 sign petitions seeking special prosecutor in Michael Brown shooting : News
St. Louis prosecutor has faced controversy for decades : News
"Throw" implies intent to twist or direct the outcome to a desired result. I do not believe he intended to twist or direct the outcome, though I also think he was not displeased with the outcome. I wouldn't be surprised if he secretly was hoping for this outcome. Given that, no, I don't think he "threw" it, but I do think he didn't try very hard to make it as fair and balanced as possible.Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty. From Justice Scalia:
"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
"Throw" implies intent to twist or direct the outcome to a desired result. I do not believe he intended to twist or direct the outcome, though I also think he was not displeased with the outcome. I wouldn't be surprised if he secretly was hoping for this outcome. Given that, no, I don't think he "threw" it, but I do think he didn't try very hard to make it as fair and balanced as possible.
He provided the grand jury with far more information than is usually provided to a grand jury. This is referred to as a "data dump", or dumping so much data on a grand jury that it's difficult for them to sort through it all.
He conducted the presentation of evidence to the grand jury like it was trial, without the benefit of cross examination.
He conducted the press conference like he was a defense attorney for Wilson even though he's supposed to work on behalf of the state and the victim, Brown.
He has not indicted a police officer in a shooting in the entire 23 years he's been the prosecutor.
His police officer father was killed by a black man in the line of duty.
His brother, nephew and cousin are all police officers in St. Louis.
His mother was a clerk for the St. Louis PD for 20 years.
Yeah, he threw it. If someone hasn't indicted a police officer for 23 years, why would he start now? There was no chance and I hope he's investigated by the federal government.
There you go still trying to suggest such an absurdity.
Your lack of understanding the evidence does not a controversy make.
There is no controversy.
Which has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
Just curious what the consensus is.
Just curious what the consensus is.